Mark Erik Hecht

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Kanata brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application concerning three children.

The mother, B.S., brought a cross-motion seeking various relief, including the return of the children to her care.

The court found the children to be in need of protection due to high parental conflict, the mother's refusal to cooperate with the Society and court orders, and concerns regarding her mental health.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, placing the children in the sole custody of the father, D.S., with supervised access for the mother at the father's discretion, subject to review upon completion of a mental health assessment.

The respondent mother brought a motion to dispense with service on the father and to remove him as a party in child protection proceedings, citing a history of abuse and potential harm.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the father as a party, finding no jurisdiction under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 or the Family Law Rules to do so based on the mother's fears.

The court emphasized the father's fundamental right to participate and the children's potential for paternal kin placement.

While the motion to dispense with service on the basis of harm was abandoned due to lack of jurisdiction, the court ordered temporary protective measures for the mother and children, including a restraining order against the father and substituted service of limited documents via his Facebook account, pending his engagement in the proceedings.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access for three children.

The children had been apprehended due to physical abuse and had significant special needs.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he could parent the children and challenging the society's evidence regarding his behaviour during access visits.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the father could not meet the children's complex needs and that Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption was in their best interests.

A child protection proceeding concerning a newborn apprehended shortly after birth due to concerns about the mother's substance use, mental health, and ability to parent a special-needs infant.

The applicant society sought a declaration that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

Expert psychiatric evidence concluded the mother lacked parenting capacity and would require years of intensive treatment and counselling before being able to parent safely.

The court found the child remained in need of protection and that the mother had not addressed the underlying concerns despite significant services offered.

Considering the statutory best interests factors, the court concluded that Crown wardship without access was necessary to ensure stability and permanency.

The children's aid society sought an order granting custody of a four-year-old child to the maternal grandmother, with access to the parents.

The father initially sought sole custody but conceded during the trial that the grandmother should have custody.

The court found that the father lacked insight into his parenting role and exhibited behaviors that undermined the grandmother and the mother.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court granted custody to the grandmother and ordered that the father's access be at the grandmother's discretion.

The father was also ordered not to return to court on custody and access issues without proof of meaningful psychotherapy.

The children's aid society brought a motion to vary a temporary consent access order to require the father's access to his one-year-old child be supervised.

The motion was prompted by the discovery that the father had left the child unattended while he went to the store.

The mother supported the motion, while the father sought to maintain unsupervised access.

The court found that the father's actions demonstrated substandard parenting and justified a change in the access order.

However, to maintain the positive relationship between the father and child, the court ordered that access be supervised by the paternal grandparents, with the father permitted up to four hours of unsupervised access during the day.

In a child protection proceeding seeking Crown wardship, both parents brought motions to adjourn the scheduled trial until after the completion of related criminal proceedings against them.

The court held that the parents could testify in the child protection proceeding without prejudicing their criminal trial rights and that the statutory timelines under the Child and Family Services Act and Family Law Rules required timely resolution.

The court found no sufficient evidentiary basis to delay the matter beyond the statutory limits and dismissed the parents’ adjournment motions.

However, the court granted an adjournment to allow the father to retain new counsel after his lawyer withdrew for health reasons, and removed counsel of record.

The trial dates were vacated and rescheduled to a fixed date.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order making three children Crown wards for the purposes of adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother lacked the capacity to parent the children due to her anger management issues, inability to manage finances, and refusal to cooperate with professionals or accept medical treatment for the children's special needs.

The children were thriving in foster care.

The court ordered the children made Crown wards for the purposes of adoption, with access to the mother at the Society's discretion.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that his child was adopted without his consent while he was out of the country.

The respondent Children's Aid Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter had already been decided by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found that the issues raised by the applicant were the subject of court orders and that under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, it does not have jurisdiction to review matters decided by a court.

The complaint was dismissed.